Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Rule 70

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases are the most famous Special Civil Actions. Also with Rule 6 ! Certiorari. "n #ar e$ams! out of %& 'uestions in Special Civil Actions! (&) deals with Rule 6 and Rule (&*Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer. +ow do you define this ,ind of SCA- "t is a real action which involves possession of real property. "t is the only real action e$clusively triable by the .unicipal /rial Court. /he other one is accion publiciana provided the property is 01&!&&&.&& or less. So accion publiciana could be ./C or R/C! but mostly R/C yan because properties are usually more than 01&!&&&.&&. 0ero iyon2 forcible entry! no problem. /he 3urisdiction of the ./C is not 2overned by the nature of the action. So let us try to 2o bac, to the fundamentals of 0roperty. Q: 4hat are the possible actions to be filed in court 2overnin2 real propertyA: /hey are the followin25 %. Accion Reinvindicatoria 6 recovery of ownership 1. Accion Publiciana 6 recovery of possession 7. Accion Interdictal 8 a. forcible entry (detentacion)9 or b. unlawful detainer (des halicio)

:ow! Forcible Entry ;FE< and Unla ful !etainer ;UD< are now found under Sections % and 1 of Rule (&. Forcible Entry is Section %.

SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of an !and or bui!ding b force, inti"idation, threat, strateg , or stea!th, or a !essor, vendor, vendee, or other person against #ho" the possession of an !and or bui!ding is un!a#fu!! #ithhe!d after the expiration or ter"ination of the right to ho!d possession, b virtue of an contract, express or i"p!ied, or the !ega! representatives or assigns of an such !essor, vendor, vendee, or other person, "a , at an ti"e #ithin one $1% ear after such un!a#fu! deprivation or #ithho!ding of possession, bring an action in the proper &unicipa! Tria! Court against the person or persons un!a#fu!! #ithho!ding or depriving of possession, or an person or persons c!ai"ing under the", for the restitution of such possession, together #ith da"ages and costs. $1a% SEC. '. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. (n!ess other#ise stipu!ated, such action b the !essor sha!! be co""enced on! after de"and to pa or co"p! #ith the conditions of the !ease and to vacate is "ade upon the !essee, or b serving #ritten notice of such de"and upon the person found on the pre"ises, or b posting such notice on the pre"ises if no person be found thereon, and the !essee fai!s to co"p! there#ith after fifteen $1)% da s in the case of !and or five $)% da s in the case of bui!dings. $'a%
Q: As defined under Section %! how do you describe forcible entry-

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

49

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

A: Forcible Entry consists in deprivin2 a person of the possession of land or buildin2 for a period of time not e$ceedin2 one ;%< year by force" inti#idation" strate$y" threat" or stealth ;F"S/S<. ;/enerio vs. =amboa! >% 0hil. < So! there is a deadline 6 one year. ?ou can only file it within one year. /he entry of the defendant over your land or buildin2 should be throu2h any of the five means. So force! di 2aano. .a3ority is strate$y or stealth in the middle of the ni2ht. S'uattin2 ba. Q: 4hat do you mean by strate$y and stealthA5 Strate2y means machinations or artifice. Stealth is defined as any secret! sly or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to 2ain entrance into or remain within residence of another without permission. ;Sumulon2 vs. CA! 171 SCRA 7(1< Q: +ow do you define Unla ful !etainerA: Unla ful !etainer consists in the unlawful withholdin2 by a person from another! for not more than one ;%< year! of the possession of any land or buildin2 after the e$piration or termination of the ri2ht to hold such possession by virtue of a contract! e$press or implied. ;/orres vs. @campo! >& 0hil. 76< E$ample5 ?ou want to e3ect your lessee from your apartment or house. Actually! the usual 2rounds are non%pay#ent of rentals or violation of any conditions of the lease contract . .aybe he has paid his rentals but he violated other provisions! or e&piration of the lease contract. /hese are the normal 2rounds for unla ful detainer. Q5 Distin2uish Forcible Entry from Unla ful !etainer A: /he followin2 are the distinctions5 %. "n forcible entry, possession is unlawful from the very be2innin2. Ai,e s'uatters ba. "n unla ful detainer! possession was lawfully ac'uired and became unlawful only because of termination of the ri2ht. Ai,e a lessee! he occupied the property lawfully but it became unlawful later. ;.edel vs. .ilitante! B% 0hil. 16< 1. #ased on Section 1! in forcible entry! formal demand is not re'uired before filin2 the action. "n unla ful detainer for failure to pay rent or to comply with the conditions of the lease contract! a formal demand to pay and to vacate is re'uired otherwise the court has no 3urisdiction over the case. ;Di,it vs. ?casiano! >C 0hil. BB< /he issue to be resolved in forcible entry and unla ful detainer is merely physical possession! not ownership9 not ri2ht of possession but physical possession. /he only issue to be determined is5 !oes the plaintiff have a prior physical possession of property in forcible entry' And then! as he deprived of his possession unla fully throu$h FI()(' Q: Can a s'uatter occupyin2 a property file a forcible entry case a2ainst another s'uatter who forcibly e3ected him! when technically both of them have no ri2hts- "f we will say no because you also have no ri2ht! then what will happen- /he first s'uatter has no recourse under the law so his only recourse is to use force also to deceive away the second s'uatter and there will be breaches of peace in the society. A: So even if he is not the owner! he can file a case because accordin2 to the SC! the purpose of the actions! this is re2ardless of the actual condition of the title to the property! the party in peaceable and 'uiet possession of the land or buildin2 shall not be turned out by stron2

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

50

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

hands of violence or terror. /he ob3ect of the law is to prevent breaches of peace and criminal disorder which will ensue if there were no such remedy. ;Dillaflor vs. Reyes! Eanuary 7&! %C6>< Q5 +ow do you distin2uish Accion Interdictal from Accion Publiciana because both deal with recovery of possession A5 /he followin2 are the distinctions5 %. Forcible entry and unla ful detainer are under the summary proceedin2 2overned by the Summary Rules the purpose of which is recovery of possession de facto. Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil action the purpose of which is recovery of the ri2ht of possession which we call possession de *ure 6 Real ri2ht. 1. Forcible entry and Unla ful !etainer : e$clusive 3urisdiction of the ./C Accion Publiciana: "t is with the R/C if it its value e$ceeds 01&!&&&. "f its 01&!&&& or less! ./C. #ut it is not 2overned by the Summary Rules. @nly forcible entry and unla ful detainer are 2overned by the Summary Rules. 7. /he period to file the action Forcible entry and Unla ful detainer: @ne ;%< year from unlawful deprivation or unlawful withholdin2 of possession. Accion publiciana may be filed at any time before ownership or other real ri2hts of the real property involved are lost by ac'uisitive prescription. :ormally! %& years. "f in bad faith! 7& years. Case: SARONA vs. VILLEGAS G.R. No. L-22984, March 27, 1968 #ut actually in this distinction! ac'uisitive prescription applies only to untitled property. "f the property is titled under the /orrens /itle! you can file the case even after %&& years because prescription will not wor, a2ainst a /orrens /itle. B. As to the 2rounds5 Forcible Entry and Unla ful !etainer5 @nly the causes ;F"S/S< mentioned in Section %. Accion Publiciana: any other cause of unlawful dispossession other than F"S/S or even F"S/S under Section % but after the lapse of one year. . /he immediate e$ecution of the Unla ful !etainer or Forcible Entry 3ud2ment is 2overned by Rule (&! Section %C. "mmediate e$ecution or e$ecution pendin2 appeal in A ccion Publiciana is 2overned by Rule 7C Section 1. /here must be a $ood reason. So iba an2 basis.

Finally! there are instances when it is very easy to determine whether it is FE or UD. #ut there are some instances when it is hard eh. 4hat is the correct action- #ecause the correct action will also determine the proper 3urisdiction. Ai,e in the case of LIM KIEH TONG VS. CA. .arch %>! %CC% FAC/S: Re2inaldo Aim and his family resided in room 7&% of the buildin2 of Aim Fieh /on2! "nc. until they transferred to their new residence in GueHon City. +owever

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

51

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

despite the fact that they moved to GueHon City! Re2inaldo Aim retained possession of the room to ,eep his important belon2in2s. So he did not 2ive up the lease of that room 7&%. /he buildin2 has only one common main door throu2h which all the occupants of the various rooms can 2et in. Accordin2ly! all occupants includin2 Re2inaldo Aim were 2iven a ,ey to the main door loc, by Aim Fieh /on2 "nc. +owever! when Re2inaldo Aim wanted to 2o inside his room on September 7& to 2et some thin2s which he needed! he found out that the ,ey he possessed was no lon2er compatible with the loc,. So pinalitan na yun2 loc, sa main door! di na mabu,san n2 susi niya. +e re'uested Aim Fieh /on2 to provide him with the appropriate ,ey but his re'uest was denied. So Re2inaldo Aim filed a complaint a2ainst Aim Fieh /on2 alle2in2 those 2rounds. And he alle2es that he has a clear and unmista,able ri2ht to the use of the room and he prays that Aim Fieh /on2 be commanded to provide him the appropriate ,ey to the loc, of the main buildin2. /hat was the complaint. "SSUE: 4hat ,ind of a complaint is that- "s that a complaint for FE or a complaint for specific perfor#ance wherein 3urisdiction is vested with the R/C+EAD5 /he SC said from the facts of the case it appears that Aim Fieh /on2 "nc. throu2h stealth deprived Re2inaldo Aim of the possession of the rented room. /herefore! the suit is one for FE under Rule (& of the Rules of Court. TIME BROADCASTING NETWORK VS. CA Eune %C! %CC( ;1(B SCRA 766< FAC/S: 0etitioner /imes #roadcastin2 :etwor, leased a portion of +otel Arocha in @Hamis City owned by private respondent Filomeno Arocha. /he sub3ect of the lease consisted of two rooms with a total area of ( meters by %% meters! a terrace with an area of 1 s'uare meters! and the rooftop of the four6storey buildin2. /he premises were to be used by petitioner to operate a radio station. "n Eune %CC7! petitioner be2an installin2 its e'uipment and apparatus in the leased premises. 0etitioner! however! installed its radio antenna on the third floor rooftop of the hotel! instead of the fourth floor rooftop as stipulated in the contract. 0rivate respondent Arocha filed before the .unicipal /rial Court in Cities ;./CC< of Dipolo2! #ranch % a verified complaint for e3ectment with payment of bac, rentals and dama2es a2ainst petitioner 0etitioner moved to dismiss the complaint. "t ar2ued that the ./CC has no 3urisdiction over the case because private respondentIs cause of action is actually not for e3ectment but for specific performance. 0etitioner contended that private respondentIs action was not simply for recovery of possession of the premises but was for compliance with the terms of the lease contract. +ence! petitioner asserted that it was the Re2ional /rial Court ;R/C<! not the ./CC! which had 3urisdiction over the case. "SSUE: 4hether the complaint filed by private respondent is one for e3ectment or specific performance. +EAD5 /he nature of the action and the 3urisdiction of courts are determined by the alle2ations in the complaint. /he afore'uoted complaint shows that the private respondent is the owner of the +otel Arocha buildin2 in @Hamis City and that the

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

52

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

petitioner! throu2h stealth and strate2y! and without any authority from the owner! used the third floor rooftop of the buildin2 as mountin2 pad of its radio antenna. "n the case at bar! private respondent was unlawfully deprived of the possession of the third floor rooftop of +otel Arocha when petitioner used it as mountin2 pad for its antenna. 0rivate respondent sou2ht to recover physical possession thereof throu2h an action for e3ectment filed before the ./CC. +ence! the case properly falls within the 3urisdiction of the ./CC. Q: "n a FE case! what are the important alle2ations which must appear in the complaintA: /here are two ;1<5 %. /he plaintiff must alle2e that he has been in prior physical possession of the 'uestioned land or buildin29 and 1. /he plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of his possession by the defendant throu2h any of the means reco2niHed by law ;F"S/S<. Q: "n one case! the complaint for forcible entry alle2es Jthat defendant unlawfully turned the plaintiff out of the possession of the property in 'uestion.K "s that an alle2ation of prior physical possession- "s the complaint sufficientA: ?ES. 4hile it is not true that there was an e$press alle2ation of prior physical possession by the plaintiff! this fact can be inferred from the words +unla fully turned the plaintiff out of possession+ for how can a person turn someone out of possession if the latter was not in the physical possession of the property. /he alle2ation of prior physical possession by the plaintiff need not be e$press. "t is enou2h that said alle2ation is inferable from the other alle2ations in the complaint. ;.addammu vs. .un. Court of .anila! (B 0hil. 17&< Q: @n the other hand! suppose the complaint for FE alle2ed Jthat before plaintiff could ta,e possession of and occupy the said house! defendant surreptitiously occupy the same without the ,nowled2e and consent of the plaintiff.K "s the complaint sufficientA: :@! it is not sufficient. "t is clear from the alle2ation that the plaintiff have not had prior physical possession because Jbefore plaintiff could ta,e possession of*K ;.addammu vs. .un. Court of .anila! (B 0hil. 17&< Q: "n another case of FE! the complaint alle2ed that the plaintiff has been ,deprived- of the land in 'uestion by the defendant. "s it a sufficient complaint for FEA: :@. /here was no alle2ation that the deprivation of possession was ille2al thou2h F"S/S. /hus! you must alle2ed that you were deprived throu2h F"S/S. ;=umiran vs. =umiran! 1% 0hil. %(B< +ow about in Unlawful Detainer casesQ: 4hat is the important alle2ationA: @f course! you must have to admit that the defendant was already there le2ally. And then there must be an alle2ation that the defendant is unlawfully withholdin2 possession of plaintiff. ;Co /iamco vs. DiaH! ( 0hil. 6(1< Ai,e in a lease! you admit that you lease your buildin2 to him! and then he could not pay rentals9 you as,ed him to leave9 you 2ave him until the end of the month to vacate9 he did not vacate. /herefore from that moment! he is now unlawfully withholdin2 possession of the land or buildin2. /a,e note in Section 1! the basic distinction between FE and UD is that a de#and to vacate is

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

53

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

not re'uired in FE. #ut a de#and to vacate by the plaintiff and the defendant refuses to vacate! is an essential re'uisite in UD. /hat is where you determine that the defendant is unlawfully withholdin2. /he possession of the defendant cannot be unlawful until you as,ed him to leave and he refuses to leave. /herefore! if there is no demand to vacate! the case will be dismissed because the ./C has no 3urisdiction. So that is a 3urisdictional re'uirement. 4hy- #ecause if there is no demand to vacate! accordin2 to the SC! your action actually is accion publiciana which is normally co2niHable by the R/C. /hat is why Section 1 says J.essor to proceed a$ainst lessee only after de#and- . @bviously! Section 1 applies only to UD. Q: 4hat is the demandA: %. Demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease contract9 A/! 1. Demand to vacate. /he normal 2round for UD is failure to pay rentals. @r even if the defendant has been payin2 rentals! if he violates the other conditions of the lease contract! then that is also a 2round because ,de#and to pay OR to co#ply-. So it is either of the two because lo2ically! failure to pay is already a violation of lease contract! di ba/a,e note" ,failure to pay or to co#ply vacateMN ith the condition of the lease AND to vacate.- LA:D to

Suppose " will write you a letter. ,)his is to re#ind you 0r. .essee that you have not been payin$ your rentals for the past 1 #onths. I hereby $ivin$ you e&actly one ee2 to pay all your rentals.- +e did not pay. " will file a case after one wee,. #ut where is you de#and to vacate- ?our demand is only to pay rentals. ?ou should say ,I a# $ivin$ you one ee2 to pay your bac2 rentals and to vacate3- ?anN Failan2an Lyun2 ,and to vacate- eh! because if it is only failure to pay rentals! there is no de#and to vacate9 your claim is a sum of money. :ow! we will 2o to the issue of demand* Q: Suppose ,0r. .essee" this is to infor# you that startin$ ne&t #onth" your #onthly rentals ill be increased fro# P4"5556#onth to P4 "7556#onth. )herefore I a# $ivin$ you until ne&t #onth to pay the increased rentals 8R to vacate.- .eanin2! if you will pay! no problem. Fun2 ayaw mo! lumayas ,a. :ow! is that a sufficient demand- Alternative ,asi eh.A5 +ere! there are some conflictin2 decisions5 LESACA vs. CUEVAS %1 S 7>B +EAD: An alternative demand to pay rentals or to vacate is le2ally sufficient for the purpose of e3ectment suit. A more definite and unconditional demand to vacate is not necessary where the lessee has no le2al ri2ht to remain in the premises for his refusal to pay the increased rentals. PEAS, SR. vs. CA 177 SCRA (&B

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

54

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

,I a# $ivin$ you until ne&t #onth to pay 8R to vacate.+EAD: :o proper demand to vacate. "n other words! it should be ,pay the rentals A/! to vacate3- +indi pweden2 you #ay vacate or you #ay not vacate . Failan2an tala2a meron2 word na and to vacate. GOLDEN GATE vs. IAC % 1 SCRA 6>B FAC/S: /he lessee was in arrears for 0%>!&&& so he received a letter from the lessor. +I a# $ivin$ you 7 days to pay bac2 rentals" otherwise I ill file an e*ect#ent case a$ainst you.+ @f course after the deadline! he did not pay. So the lessor filed a case for UD. Accordin2 to the defendant! there is no de#and to vacate9 you are definite to file a case a2ainst me but where is the de#and to vacate+EAD5 /he letter is sufficient. 0wede na LyonN And the SC said! J4hen the private respondents defaulted in the payment of rents in the amount of 0%>!&&&.&&! they lost their ri2hts to remain in the premises. +ence! when the petitioner demanded payment of the 0%>!&&&.&& due and unpaid rentals or a case for e3ectment would be filed a2ainst them! the owner was 2ivin2 stron2 notice that Oyou either pay your unpaid rentals or " will file a court case to have you thrown out of my property.O /he word OvacateO is not a talismanic word that must be employed in all notices. /he alternatives in this case are clear cut. /he tenants must pay rentals which were fi$ed and which became payable in the past! failin2 which they must move out. /here can be no other interpretation of the notice 2iven to them. +ence when the petitioner demanded that either he pays 0%>!&&&.&& in five days or a case for e3ectment would be filed a2ainst him! he was placed on notice to move out if he does not pay. /here was! in effect! a notice or demand to vacate.K Compare that with the case of LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS vs. CA 177 SCRA % % +ere! the lessee has not also been payin2 his rentals and water bills. So the lessor wrote a letter to the lessee! ,9arnin$: Upon your failure to pay your unpaid rentals and unpaid ater bills" I ill for ard this #atter to our le$al counsel for proper action.- "s there a sufficient demand+EAD: :o. 4e do not see in this statement an une'uivocal or even an implied demand on the lessee to vacate from the premises. /he doctrine in the =olden =ate case is therefore not applicable. BANDOY vs. CA %( SCRA B C FAC/S5 0rior to filin2 of e3ectment case a2ainst the defendant! the plaintiff brou2ht the matter to the #aran2ay Captain! but to no avail. A certification to file a case was issued by the #aran2ay Captain. So na26file n2 ,aso an2 plaintiff. /he complaint for UD contained no alle2ation that there was a prior demand to vacate.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

55

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

,0otion to dis#iss"- sabi n2 defendant! ,no de#and to vacate. :ave you ritten #e a letter' !id you notify #e to vacate'Accordin2 to the plaintiff! ,0y $olly3 9e have already tal2ed ith the ;aran$$ay. 0ay usapan na tayo dun3 Pareho na rin yun3- So the plaintiff contended that no further demand to vacate is needed after a certification to file a case was issued by the #aran2ay Captain for the reason that the case was already certified to court for action. Any further de#and to vacate is merely repetitive and unnecessary. +EAD: 0laintiff is wron2. .aliN /he certification of the #aran2ay Captain is not conclusive as to the 3urisdiction of the Court to which the case was subse'uently filed. 4hat was certified by the #aran22ay Captain was that no settlement was reached by the parties in the #aran2ay level. "t did not certify that all the re'uisites for the filin2 of the UD case was complied with. /herefore the case is dismissed.

So de#and to vacate is 3urisdictional. Faya to play it safe! sabihin mo na lan2 ,I a# re<uestin$ you to pay your rentals A/! )8 =A>A)E3- "6capitaliHe mo yun2 ?A/! )8 =A>A)E@ para wala n2 samo,* because it has been the cause of so many problems eh. "t reaches the SC 3ust because of the issue5 as there a de#and to vacate- /he best thin2 is to use that words so that there could be no room for controversy. Q: "s there a possibility that an UD case will be filed without a prior de#and to vacateA: "t would seem so. !e#and to vacate! if you observed! is essential if you 2round for UD is non6payment of rentals or failure to comply the condition of the lease. Q: :ow! suppose the 2round for e3ectment is e$piration of the lease contract. E$ample: ,0r. .essee" this is to re#ind you that the lease contract ill $oin$ to e&pire at the end of this #onth. I ill not rene your contract so you better loo2 for another place to #ove. K 4ell! that is 3ust a reminder. /here is no de#and to vacate. At the end of the month! nandun pa rin an2 lessee. File ,a n2 UD. #ut where is the de#and to vacateA: /here are some decided cases where the SC said that the de#and to vacate may be dispensed with because anyway! the 2round for e3ectment is not non%pay#ent of rentals or violation of conditions of the lease contract. .eanin2! the defendant should be informed strai2ht ahead that he could not e$tend his stays anymore. /hat is what Section 1 seems to convey! J*such action by the lessor shall be co##enced only after de#and to pay or co#ply ith the conditions of the lease and to vacateAActually " e$perienced this eh years a2o. " filed an action for UD without any de#and to vacate because my 2round is e$piration of the lease contract. /he defendant filed a motion to dismiss because no de#and to vacate. " was tellin2 the court" ,Bour :onor! demand to vacate is not really necessary in all cases. 9hen the $round is e&piration of lease contract" hindi na 2ailan$an. And these are decided cases...And the 3ud2e does not ,now the cases. +e does not ,now the e$ception. +e ,nows the 2eneral ruleN So " appealed to the old CF". :a6reverse. #umali,. /he hearin2 too, almost > months.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

56

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

And " said! this is a lesson for me. " will stic, with the 2eneral rule most of the time because you do not e$pect the 3ud2e to ,now the e$ception. So that is a lesson in my practice. Q: 4here do you compute the one year period A: For Forcible Entry! from the date of unlawful deprivation. For Unla ful !etainer! from the date of unlawful withholdin2. /hat is evident by the demand to vacate because you 2ive a deadline. ?ou count the one year period from your deadline. Q: Suppose! hindi na26vacate. +indi ,a rin na26file n2 case. 0inabayaan mo lan2. /hen after one year you 2ave another demand to vacate. 4hen do you count the one year period - From the date of the first demand or second demandA: (tandin$ Rule 5 AA/ES/ DE.A:D. PEAS, JR. vs. CA 177 SCRA (CB +EAD5 /he one year period provided for in Section %! Rule (& from the last letter of demand to vacate. /he reason bein2 that ri2ht to waive his ri2ht of action based on the previous demand remain in the meanwhile. "n effect! " le2aliHe his possession all doin2 anythin2. should be counted the lessor has the and let the lessee over a2ain by not

:ow! the ne$t provisions startin2 form Section 7 to %B are new provisions and reiterations of the rules of Summary 0rocedure. Remember when we too, up Summary 0rocedure! all FE and UD cases are covered by the Summary Rules. /hat is why in %CC( when the SC decided to amend the rules in Civil 0rocedure! sinama na nila an2 m2a ito.

Sec. *. Summary procedure Except in cases covered b the agricu!tura! tenanc !a#s or #hen the !a# other#ise express! provides, a!! actions for forcib!e entr and un!a#fu! detainer, irrespective of the a"ount of da"ages or unpaid renta!s sought to be recovered, sha!! be governed b the su""ar procedure hereunder provided. $n% Sec. +. Pleadings allowed The on! p!eadings a!!o#ed to be fi!ed are the co"p!aint, co"pu!sor counterc!ai" and cross,c!ai" p!eaded in the ans#er, and the ans#ers thereto. -!! p!eadings sha!! be verified. $*a, .S/% Sec. ). Action on complaint The court "a , fro" an exa"ination of the a!!egations in the co"p!aint and such evidence as "a be attached thereto, dis"iss the case outright on an of the grounds for the dis"issa! of a civi! action #hich are apparent therein. If no ground for dis"issa! is found, it sha!! forth#ith issue su""ons. $n% Sec. 0. Answer 1ithin ten $12% da s fro" service of su""ons, the defendant sha!! fi!e his ans#er to the co"p!aint and serve a cop thereof on the p!aintiff. -ffir"ative and negative defenses not p!eaded therein sha!! be dee"ed #aived, except !ac3 of jurisdiction over the subject "atter. Cross,c!ai"s and co"pu!sor counterc!ai"s not asserted in the ans#er sha!! be considered barred. The ans#er to counterc!ai"s or cross,c!ai"s sha!! be served and fi!ed #ithin ten $12% da s fro" service of the ans#er in #hich the are p!eaded. $), .S/% Sec. 4. Effect of failure to answer Shou!d the defendant fai! to ans#er the co"p!aint #ithin the period above provided, the court, "otu proprio or on "otion of the p!aintiff, sha!! render judg"ent as "a be #arranted b the facts a!!eged in the co"p!aint and !i"ited to #hat

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

57

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

is pra ed for therein. The court "a in its discretion reduce the a"ount of da"ages and attorne 5s fees c!ai"ed for being excessive or other#ise unconscionab!e, #ithout prejudice to the app!icabi!it of section * $c%, .u!e 6 if there are t#o or "ore defendants. $0, .S/% Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties Not !ater than thirt $*2% da s after the !ast ans#er is fi!ed, a pre!i"inar conference sha!! be he!d. The provisions of .u!e 17 on pre, tria! sha!! be app!icab!e to the pre!i"inar conference un!ess inconsistent #ith the provisions of this .u!e. The fai!ure of the p!aintiff to appear in the pre!i"inar conference sha!! be cause for the dis"issa! of his co"p!aint. The defendant #ho appears in the absence of the p!aintiff sha!! be entit!ed to judg"ent on his counterc!ai" in accordance #ith the next preceding section. -!! cross,c!ai"s sha!! be dis"issed. $4, .S/% If a so!e defendant sha!! fai! to appear, the p!aintiff sha!! !i3e#ise be entit!ed to judg"ent in accordance #ith the next preceding section. This procedure sha!! not app! #here one of t#o or "ore defendants sued under a co""on cause of action #ho had p!eaded a co""on defense sha!! appear at the pre!i"inar conference. No postpone"ent of the pre!i"inar conference sha!! be granted except for high! "eritorious grounds and #ithout prejudice to such sanctions as the court in the exercise of sound discretion "a i"pose on the "ovant. $n% Sec. 6. Record of preliminary conference 1ithin five $)% da s after the ter"ination of the pre!i"inar conference, the court sha!! issue an order stating the "atters ta3en up therein, inc!uding but not !i"ited to8 1. 1hether the parties have arrived at an a"icab!e sett!e"ent, and if so, the ter"s thereof9 '. The stipu!ations or ad"issions entered into b the parties9 *. 1hether, on the basis of the p!eadings and the stipu!ations and ad"issions "ade b the parties, judg"ent "a be rendered #ithout the need of further proceedings, in #hich event the judg"ent sha!! be rendered #ithin thirt $*2% da s fro" issuance of the order9 +. - c!ear specification of "ateria! facts #hich re"ain controverted9 and ). Such other "atters intended to expedite the disposition of the case. $7, .S/% Sec. 12. Submission of affida its and position papers 1ithin ten $12% da s fro" receipt of the order "entioned in the next preceding section, the parties sha!! sub"it the affidavits of their #itnesses and other evidence on the factua! issues defined in the order, together #ith their position papers setting forth the !a# and the facts re!ied upon b the". $6, .S/% Sec. 11. Period for rendition of !udgment 1ithin thirt $*2% da s after receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for fi!ing the sa"e, the court sha!! render judg"ent. :o#ever, shou!d the court find it necessar to c!arif certain "ateria! facts, it "a , during the said period, issue an order specif ing the "atters to be c!arified, and re;uire the parties to sub"it affidavits or other evidence on the said "atters #ithin ten $12% da s fro" receipt of said order. <udg"ent sha!! be rendered #ithin fifteen $1)% da s after the receipt of the !ast affidavit or the expiration of the period for fi!ing the sa"e. The court sha!! not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain ti"e for the rendition of the judg"ent. $n%

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

58

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Sec. 1'. Referral for conciliation Cases re;uiring referra! for conci!iation, #here there is no sho#ing of co"p!iance #ith such re;uire"ent, sha!! be dis"issed #ithout prejudice, and "a be revived on! after that re;uire"ent sha!! have been co"p!ied #ith. $17a, .S/% Sec. 1*. Prohibited pleadings and motions The fo!!o#ing petitions, "otions, or p!eadings sha!! not be a!!o#ed8 1. &otion to dis"iss the co"p!aint except on the ground of !ac3 of jurisdiction over the subject "atter, or fai!ure to co"p! #ith section 1'9 '. &otion for a bi!! of particu!ars9 *. &otion for ne# tria!, or for reconsideration of a judg"ent, or for reopening of tria!9 +. /etition for re!ief fro" judg"ent9 ). &otion for extension of ti"e to fi!e p!eadings, affidavits or an other paper9 0. &e"oranda9 4. /etition for certiorari, "anda"us, or prohibition against an inter!ocutor order issued b the court9 7. &otion to dec!are the defendant in defau!t9 6. =i!ator "otions for postpone"ent9 12. .ep! 9 11. Third,part co"p!aints9 1'. Interventions. $16a, .S/% Sec. 1+. Affida its The affidavits re;uired to be sub"itted under this .u!e sha!! state on! facts of direct persona! 3no#!edge of the affiants #hich are ad"issib!e in evidence, and sha!! sho# their co"petence to testif to the "atters stated therein. - vio!ation of this re;uire"ent "a subject the part or the counse! #ho sub"its the sa"e to discip!inar action, and sha!! be cause to expunge the inad"issib!e affidavit or portion thereof fro" the record. $'2, .S/% Sec. 1). Preliminary in!unction. The court "a grant pre!i"inar injunction, in accordance #ith the provisions of .u!e )7 hereof, to prevent the defendant fro" co""itting further acts of dispossession against the p!aintiff. - possessor deprived of his possession through forcib!e entr or un!a#fu! detainer "a , #ithin five $)% da s fro" the fi!ing of the co"p!aint, present a "otion in the action for forcib!e entr or un!a#fu! detainer for the issuance of a #rit of pre!i"inar "andator injunction to restore hi" in his possession. The court sha!! decide the "otion #ithin thirt $*2% da s fro" the fi!ing thereof. $*a%

Q: Can the court issue a writ of preliminary in3unction A: ?ES under Section % ! to prevent the defendant from further acts of disposition. Q: Can the plaintiff file in an action for UD and FE a petition for mandatory in3unction A: ?ES Q: "s the remedy of preliminary in3unction available in UD and FE cases! especially the remedy of preliminary mandatory in3unction to restore the plaintiff immediately in the possession of real propertyA: ?ES.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

59

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

"f you loo, at Article 7C of the :ew Civil Code! 0reliminary .andatory "n3unction ;0."< is only possible in FE cases. /here is no such thin2 under the CC as 0." in UD cases. ?ou cannot 2et a 0." a2ainst your lessee. #ut you loo, at the new law! Section % ,A possessor deprived of his possession throu$h forcible entry or unla ful detainerA- /herefore the remedy of 0." has been made applicable also under the new rules to UD cases. :a2in2 broader na. /he applicability of 0." in UD cases was first laid down by the SC before %CC( in the case of !AB vs. R)> of CA0;8A/DA ;ranch 41! %C% SCRA 6%&. #efore! " was wonderin2 when this thin2 came out. +ow about the ob3ection5 Did the Rules of Court a procedural law! amended the Civil Code which is a substantive law- /his is tantamount to Rules of Court amendin2 Article 7C of the CC. @f course may reason tala2a an2 SC nyan. #ut where did the SC 2et also that rule" went bac, to the case of DAY vs. RTC to find out the basis. And the SC said it was authoriHed by SEC 77 of the Eudiciary Aaw #0 %1C that ./C can issue 0rovisional Remedies in all cases.

>$1% Exc!usive origina! jurisdiction over civi! actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, inc!uding the grant of provisiona! re"edies in proper cases?@ Sec. **, A/ 1'6
/hatMs how the SC e$plained. Actually! the Eudiciary Aaw is substantive law. /his was passed by the Con2ress. So in effect! the Eudiciary Aaw has already amended Article 7C of CC which is also a substantive law. "t is not the SC that modified or e$panded the substantive ri2ht in the CC. "t was the Con2ress and the SC is 3ust interpretin2 it. ?aanN /his reminds me about the first 'uestion as,ed in 0olitical Aaw in last SundayMs #ar E$am5 A senator ma,es a remar,5 J)he (upre#e >ourt is a continuin$ constitutional convention.- !o you a$ree or disa$ree' Actually! both sides are defensible. #ut you have to understand what the 'uestion is* because if you cannot understand! it can bother you5 ho can the (> be a constitutional convention here a constitution can only be a#ended by a convention called for that purpose by the >on$ress in *oint session' :o can the (> a#end the constitution' )hat ould be unconstitutional3 #ut you 2o deeper5 ho interpret the >onstitution' Supreme Court man baN Faya n2a sabi n2 isan2 American Eustice5 ?)he >onstitution is hat the (upre#e >ourt says.@ Fahit mali an2 pa26 interpret! tama man baN. And ta,e note! decisions of the SC form part of the law of the land. So everytime there is a constitutional issue and the SC interprets it! they are made into doctrines. So in effect! you can say that the SC ,eeps on amendin2 the Constitution by interpretin2 the different provisions of the Constitution. So in that sense! the SC is a continuin2 constitutional convention.

SEC. 10. Resol ing defense of ownership. 1hen the defendant raises the defense of o#nership in his p!eadings and the ;uestion of possession cannot be reso!ved #ithout deciding the issue of o#nership, the issue of o#nership sha!! be reso!ved on! to deter"ine the issue of possession. $+a%
:ow this is ta,en almost word for word from the Eudiciary Aaw! Sec 77.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

60

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Eudiciary Aaw Sec 77 6 Eurisdiction of 0)>" R)> and 0>)> in >ivil >ases
>?'.Exc!usive origina! jurisdiction over cases of BE and (C provided that #hen in so"e cases the defendant raises the ;uestion of o#nership in his p!eadings and the ;uestion of possession cannot be reso!ved #ithout deciding the issue of o#nership. The issue of o#nership sha!! be reso!ved on! to deter"ine the issue of possession. >

. /he lan2ua2e is identical. So this is ta,en from that provision. "n FE and UD! the issue or controversy is possession. @wnership is irrelevant! immaterial in FE and UD. :ot even possession as a ri2ht or possession de *ure but purely physical possession. /hat is why a s'uatter can file an action for FE! even if technically! he has no le2al ri2ht to the property he is possessin2. 4hy- #ecause ownership is not the issue. 4ho has the le2al ri2ht should be threshed out in accion publiciana. /he only issue is the recovery of physical possession. Q: 4hat happens if there is also the issue of ownership- Can the ./C rule on the issue of ownership if it is raisedA: ?ES! if it is necessary to rule on the issue of possession. Sometimes the issue of possession hin2es on the issue of ownership. #ut if the court says that based on the evidence! the court is of the opinion that the owner is A! that is a declaration of ownership which is only pri#a facie. /he court really has no power to rule on the issue of ownership in FE and UD. "f you want to 'uarrel on ownership! you want to find out who really is the owner! punta ,ayo sa R/C* dun ,ayo ma2 away! huwa2 dito. #ut if " ;./C< will rule on ownership only as a preliminary step only to decide on the issue. /hat is only pri#a facie. /hat is why the SC said 54hen the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadin2s and the 'uestion of possession cannot be resolved without decidin2 on the issue of ownership! the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. /he decision of ownership is not final. /hat should be decided with the R/C Q: "s it possible that we have two cases a2ainst each other- "n the ./C on possession in the FE or UD! in the R/C we are fi2htin2 on the issue of ownership. A: ?ES. /here is no interference. Q: Suppose " file a case a2ainst you for FE or UD. :ow you file a case also in the R/C where you raise the issue that you are the owner. "Im claimin2 possession in the ./C and you are claimin2 ownership in the R/C. Suppose the person claimin2 ownership would say! +Alri$ht" since e are <uarrellin$ on o nership already in the R)>" the 0)> should not try the case of FE or U!. )he cases of FE or U! should be dis#issed because the issue of o nership is bein$ liti$ated in the R)>.- "s that a correct positionA: :@. /he two can continue. R/C decides on ownership! the ./C decides on possession. /he two are separate issues. "f " will file a case a2ainst you for FE or UD! which is actually a summary proceedin2 for e3ectment! you can easily defeat that by filin2 a case a2ainst me in the R/C where you raise the issue of ownership! althou2h your opposition is not serious. ?ou will then contest the ownership 3ust to ,ill my case. /hat would be improper. REFUGIA vs. CA! 1 > SCRA 7B(. Euly ! %CC6

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

61

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

+EAD: #y virtue of the e$press mandate set forth in Section 77! para2raph 1 of the Eudiciary Aaw! which is also Section %6! inferior courts or first level courts! i.e. ./C! have the power to resolve the 'uestion of ownership raised as an incident of an e3ectment case where the determination thereof is necessary for a proper and complete ad3udication on the issue of possession. Any such pronouncements made affectin2 ownership is to be re2arded merely as provisional. +ence it will not bar nor pre3udice an action between the same parties involvin2 title to the land. HILARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 16& SCRA B1& +EAD5 Even where the defendant alle2es ownership or title to the property in his or her answer! the first level court will not be divested of its 3urisdiction. ;"t will not be deprived of its role< A contrary rule will pave the way for the defendant to trifle with the e3ectment suit which is summary in nature. +e could easily defeat the same throu2h the simple e$pedient of assertin2 ownership. "n the ./C! we are 'uarrellin2 with the issue of possession. "n the R/C! we are 'uarrellin2 with the issue on ownership. /he ./C does not have to 2ive way to the 3urisdiction of the R/C. /hat is the principle to remember. /here are some RARE instatnces na bali,tad pa n2a . /here are two cases between the same parties and the court said everythin2 should be decided on the e3ectment case or UD. "t should be the R/C ;to 2ive way for the ./C<... bali,tad. @ne of them is UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES INC. vs. CA ;177 SCRA >6<./he case is related to one of the 2rounds for a motion to dismiss i.e. litis pendentia. /here is another action pendin2 between the same parties for the same cause.As a 2eneral rule! when there are two cases pendin2 between the two parties! for the same cause! which should be dismissed- /he first or the second case- #ased on priority in time! the second will be dismissed. Q: "s there a possibility that it should be the first ;which must be dismissed<A5 ?ES. 4hen the first case was filed as an anticipatory suit! on the theory that the best defense is an offense. ?ou are convertin2 your defense as a cause of action. /hat is what happened here. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES INC. vs. CA 177 SCRA >6 FAC/S: U0S" is a corporation that operates a school. "t bou2ht 1 parcels of land in .anila where an apartment was constructed. /he obvious purpose of the company is to demolish it. /hey will put up a school ;buildin2< there or classrooms. +owever! one unit of the apartment was occupied by a certain Eocelyn Formentira. Despite the demand to vacate! Formentira refused. +ence U0S" commenced the demolition of the apartment. 4hen Formentira saw that the apartment was demolished little by little! what she did was to file a complaint for dama2es a2ainst U0S"! claimin2 that the demolition was unlawful. 4ith it was a prayer for preliminary in3unction and restrainin2 order a2ainst U0S" in the R/C. As main relief! she demanded that U0S" be permanently en3oined from doin2 any act to force out or cause her e3ectment from said apartment unit. U0S"! in turn! filed a complaint for e3ectment a2ainst formentira in the ./C of .anila. Dalawa na an2 ,aso5

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

62

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

%. /he first by Formentira i.e. dama2es with 0reliminary "n3unction9 and 1. /he second was filed by U0S" for e3ectment. "SSUE: 4hich of the two cases shall ta,e precedence over the other- "f we follow the rule of first6come6first6serve! we will conclude that the case filed by U0S" ;the second case< should be dismissed. +EAD5 FormentiraIs action for dama2es should be dismissed. "t is the R/C case filed ahead that should be dismissed. Formentira cannot deny that the complaint for dama2es ta,en in its full conte$t was meant to prevent U0S" from e3ectin2 her. /he main action ,unuhay! is dama2es . Funuhay lan2 baN #ut with the prayer for in3unction! in effect she is usin2 the case for dama2es to stop her e3ectment from the apartment. +er complaint for dama2es bears unmista,able earmar,s that show of its true nature and character! touchin2 as it does! on her alle2ed ri2ht to continue possession of the premises. /hou2h not couched in specific terms! Formentira is virtually as,in2 for an indefinite e$tension of the lease of the disputed premises. Admittedly! while she claims indemnity for what she believes were wron2ful and ille2al acts committed a2ainst her by the U0S"! it is nevertheless indisputable that the pivotal issue presented by the complaint involves the determination of her ri2ht or the lac, of it over the disputed property. "t follows therefore that the dama2es alle2edly suffered by her is merely an incident to the 'uestion of possession disputed by the parties. /he issue of whether Formentira has the ri2ht should be threshed out in an e3ectment suit and not an action for dama2es! thou2h the 'uestion of possession is li,ewise in issue. 4e cannot simply i2nore the fact that Formentira! after her un3ustified refusal to vacate the premises was aware that an e3ectment case a2ainst her was forthcomin2.

Sec. 14. "udgment. If after tria! the court finds that the a!!egations of the co"p!aint are true, it sha!! render judg"ent in favor of the p!aintiff for the restitution of the pre"ises, the su" just! due as arrears of rent or as reasonab!e co"pensation for the use and occupation of the pre"ises, attorne 5s fees and costs. If it finds that said a!!egations are not true, it sha!! render judg"ent for the defendant to recover his costs. If a counterc!ai" is estab!ished, the court sha!! render judg"ent for the su" found in arrears fro" either part and a#ard costs as justice re;uires. $0a%
/here will be hearin2! and after these and the court finds that the alle2ations in the complaint are true! it shall render 3ud2ement in favor of the plaintiff. Q: Ano an2 3ud2mentA5 /he 3ud2ment orderin2 the defendant to vacate .the property involved or the restitution* surrender the possession! the sums due as arrears of rent. So if UD! you pay all the bac, rentals. And the bac, rental could 2o as hi2h as more than 01&&!&&& or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. For e$ample! in FE! what rentals are you tal,in2 about- +ow can you compute the rental- "f it is UD! ,laro. /he rental of the lessee is! lets say 01!&&& a month. Fun2 FE anon2 rental an2 sinasabi mo dun- 4ala man2 rental! s'uatter man yan. #ut he has to pay* the reasonable co#pensation of the use and occupation of the pre#ises. .eanin2! how much! by way of dama2es is the plaintiff entitled to recover for the use and occupation of the property. /he court will now fi$ the reasonable compensation. /he court can also award attorneyIs fees and costs. "t should not e$ceed 01&!&&&.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

63

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

"f the alle2ations are not true! then the case will be dismissed and if there is a counterclaim! the same can be awarded. Q: Suppose you occupy my property! so " file FE. " will pray for e3ectment! payment for reasonable compensation for the use of my property! attorneyMs fees! costs! dama2es i.e. moral and e$emplary! unrealiHed profits ;somebody wanted to lease my property but cannot ,asi andyan ,aN<. @r! if UD! " will e3ect you from my buildin2! may sira an2 bahay! nasira an2 walls! roof! floor! windows! doors! etc. So " will pay for dama2es for the deterioration you caused to my buildin2. .y 'uestion is5 Can the court award these dama2es i.e. moral! e$emplary! or unrealiHed profits! for the value of the destroyed portions of my house or buildin2A: :@. /he only thin2 you can recover are unpaid rentals! or in case of FE! reasonable compensation! attorneyIs fees and costs. Q: +ow about my claims for dama2es and unrealiHed profitsA: "f you want to recover! you file another case. Dama2es are not recoverable in FE and UD e&cept such dama2es as attorneyMs fees! costs! unpaid rentals! or reasonable compensation. All other dama2es are not recoverable. File another case. 4hile %. 1. 7. B. dama2es seems to be recoverable! these are limited only to5 attorneyIs fees9 costs9 unpaid rentals9 and reasonable compensation.(REBE( vs. >A "1F (>RA 41FG ;AE/ vs. >A" 4H7 (>RA I1J)

SEC. 17. "udgment conclusi e only on possession; not conclusi e in actions in ol ing title or ownership. The judg"ent rendered in an action for forcib!e entr or detainer sha!! be conc!usive #ith respect to the possession on! and sha!! in no #ise bind the tit!e or affect the o#nership of the !and or bui!ding. Such judg"ent sha!! not bar an action bet#een the sa"e parties respecting tit!e to the !and or bui!ding. The judg"ent or fina! order sha!! be appea!ab!e to the appropriate .egiona! Tria! Court #hich sha!! decide the sa"e on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such "e"oranda andDor briefs as "a be sub"itted b the parties or re;uired b the .egiona! Tria! Court. $4a%
4hen there is a 3ud2ement in a FE or UD! they will be conclusive with respect to the possession only. Definitely! the ./C has no power to rule on the issue of ownership or title. /here is no res ad*udicata. #ut there is as to the issue of possession. +owever! if you say that the court has the power to rule on the issue of possession! it also means all other issues incident to the possession! e.$. has the lease contract e$pired- @r on the interpretation of terms and provisions of the contract/hese issues are res ad*udicata! e$cept as to ownership. /hat is why Section %> is related to Section %6. 4hen there is an issue raised in the pleadin2s as to the ownership! such will be resolved for the purpose of resolvin2 the issue of possession. #ut definitely! there should be another case to be filed as to the ownership.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

64

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Sec. 16. I""ediate execution of judg"ent9 ho# to sta sa"e if judg"ent is rendered against the defendant, execution sha!! issue i""ediate! upon "otion, un!ess an appea! has been perfected and the defendant to sta execution fi!es a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved b the &unicipa! Tria! Court and executed in favor of the p!aintiff to pa the rents, da"ages, and costs accruing do#n to the ti"e of the judg"ent appea!ed fro", and un!ess, during the pendenc of the appea!, he deposits #ith the appe!!ate court the a"ount of rent due fro" ti"e to ti"e under the contract, if an , as deter"ined b the judg"ent of the &unicipa! Tria! Court. In the absence of a contract, he sha!! deposit #ith the .egiona! Tria! Court the reasonab!e va!ue of the use and occupation of the pre"ises for the preceding "onth or period at the rate deter"ined b the judg"ent of the !o#er court on or before the tenth da of each succeeding "onth or period. The supersedeas bond sha!! be trans"itted b the &unicipa! Tria! Court, #ith the other papers, to the c!er3 of the .egiona! Tria! Court to #hich the action is appea!ed. -!! a"ounts so paid to the appe!!ate court sha!! be deposited #ith said court or authoriEed govern"ent depositar ban3, and sha!! be he!d there unti! the fina! disposition of the appea!, un!ess the court, b agree"ent of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonab!e grounds of opposition to a "otion to #ithdra#, or for justifiab!e reasons, sha!! decree other#ise. Shou!d the defendant fai! to "a3e the pa "ents above prescribed fro" ti"e to ti"e during the pendenc of the appea!, the appe!!ate court, upon "otion of the p!aintiff, and upon proof of such fai!ure, sha!! order the execution of the judg"ent appea!ed fro" #ith respect to the restoration of possession, but such execution sha!! not be a bar to the appea! ta3ing its course unti! the fina! disposition thereof on the "erits. -fter the case is decided b the .egiona! Tria! Court, an "one paid to the court b the defendant for purposes of the sta of execution sha!! be disposed of in accordance #ith the provisions of the judg"ent of the .egiona! Tria! Court. In an case #herein it appears that the defendant has been deprived of the !a#fu! possession of !and or bui!ding pending the appea! b virtue of the execution of the judg"ent of the &unicipa! Tria! Court, da"ages for such deprivation of possession and restoration of possession "a be a!!o#ed the defendant in the judg"ent of the .egiona! Tria! Court disposing of the appea!. $7a%
0laintiff files a complaint for FE or UD. /he complaint prays for the decision to order the defendant to vacate the property. Chances are rentals are included. After the hearin2! the court renders the 3ud2ment5 +9:EREF8RE. findin$ the plaintiff to have proven his cause of action" the sa#e bein$ #eritorious" the court hereby (orders the defendant) to pay all his unpaid rentals" be$innin$ last year" at the rate of P4"555 a #onth" until he vacates.+ @r ,un2 FE" +pay P4"555 as reasonable co#pensation for the occupation of the property fro# the ti#e he entered it to the ti#e he vacates.+ plus attorneyKs fees. (o oredered.So panalo ,a. /he decision will be furnished to you. Followin2 the usual pattern. "f we follow the 2eneral rules of civil procedure! the 3ud2ement is not yet final. /he defendant has % days to appeal. :ow under the Rules! the plaintiff can file a motion to e$ecute after the period to appeal! when there is no appeal. /hat is the rule! althou2h as an e&ception! the plaintiff can file a motion for discretionary e$ecution i.e. e$ecution pendin2 appeal! provided there is a $ood reason* yun lan2. So ,un2 walan2 $ood reason! pasensya. So you have to convince the court that there is a $ood reason. @therwise you stic, to the 2eneral rule.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

65

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

:ow! " file a case of FE a2ainst you or UD. Decision* panalo a,o. @f course we assume that " will also receive the decision today. "t is not yet final. :ow! under Section %C! tomorrow! " will file a motion for immediate e$ecution! because under the Rules! the 3ud2ement for UD or FE is "..ED"A/EA? e$ecutory. 0ala2 si Cholo5 +4ala man2 $ood reason'+ Q: Does the plaintiff have to cite $ood reasonA: :o $ood reason is re'uired. /he only reason is 8 I on. And accordin2 to the SC O it is a ministerial duty of the ./C to order .+ +indi ,ailan2an na you have to wait for the 3ud2ment to become final. "t is not necessary that you wait for it to be final 8 that is only applicable to ordinary cases. 0a2tan22ap*file ,a bu,as. And the court will issue an order of e$ecution* because under Section %C Oa 3ud2ement is immediately e$ecutoryO. /hat is a uni'ue rule no- (tuod $id eh3) 4e will now 2o to the side of the defendant. So there is now an order to e3ect you. /he sheriff will 2o to you anytime and ,ic, you out. "s there a way for me to stop himQ: ;As defendant< Can " stop the order of e$ecutionA: ?ES. /here are three ;7< thin2s that you must do5 %. Bou #ust appeal.% ?ou must appeal the 3ud2ement to the R/C. Appeal to the R/C.. .eanin2! prevent the 3ud2ment from becomin2 final. 1. )he defendant #ust file a supersedeas bond to the R)>. 6 Ano an2 supresedeas bondA supersedeas bond will answer for all the amount due to the plaintiff up to the date of the 3ud2ment. +alimbawa an2 bac,6rentals mo ay one year na. ?ou have not been payin2 your rentals for a year. At 0%!&&& a month! lets say 0%1!&&&. ?ou post a supersedeas bond for 0%1!&&&. "f the rental is 01!&&& a month! you pay a bond of 01B!&&&. ?ou appeal! file bond! and you let the court approve the bond. 4ith that the ./C will now withdraw the order of e$ecution. ?our appeal will now proceed. /he records will be elevated to the R/C. /he money you deposited will be with the cler, of court. 4hen the case reaches the R/C you do the third re'uirement. Remember! you filed the bond to answer the accounts due to the plaintiff under the 3ud2ement. 7. 0a2datin2 sa R/C! be sure that every month you 2o to the office of the cler, of court. Bou #a2e periodical deposits of the rents fallin$ due durin$ the pendency of the appeal every #onth. E$ample! each month 01!&&& ;if such is the monthly rental<. 4hile the appeal is 2oin2 on! ta,bo nan2 ta,bo yun2 rental. Failan- :ot later than the %&th day of the months succeedin2. @n or before the %&th day of the succeedin2 month or period. E.$. "f the rental is due on September! on or before September %&. For @ctober! not later than @ctober %&.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

66

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

4hat happens if nalimutan mo- :alimutan* - 4hat will the plaintiff do/he plaintiff! throu2h his lawyer will now file a motion to e$ecute in the R/C* to e$ecute the 3ud2ement of the ./C. #a,it- :on6compliance. Accordin2 to 3urisprudence! it is the ministerial duty of the R/C to order the e$ecution. So out. 0aano yun2 appeal mo- /uloyN ?our appeal will continue! but in the meantime! out ,a. Fun2 nanalo ,a! pabali,in ,a. "n the meantime! out ,aN /he purpose of this law is to prevent the prolon2ed a2ony of the plaintiff.. /he s'uatter or the delin'uent lesee can always delay. Fahit na talo na si2e appeal* appeal* appeal (isan$ appeal paA appeal3 u##3). /hese are the counter6 measures. Remember the three re'uirements. ?ou fail to observe one! yari ,aN. /hat is the rule. /hese are all intended to restore the possession of the property to the plaintiff. /hat is the rule to remember. /his is uni'ue eh. Q: :ow! when do you file the supersedeas bond- 4hat if " file my notice of appeal on the %&th day! and the bond on the %6thA: /he SC said! EPECU/EN /he supersedeas bond should be deposited to2ether within the % days. +indi pwede ma6e$tend. :@ EP/E:S"@: for the filin2 of the supersedeas bond. CORDOVA vs. GABAYLEN 1BC SCRA %(1! @ctober %&! %CC +EAD5 4hile it is true therefore that defendant deposited the amount which appro$imates the monetary 3ud2ment for unpaid rentals! since the same was filed late! it could not 'ualify as a supersedeas bond. 4hat is considered material for the purpose of the stay of e$ecution pendin2 appeal under Rule (& is not the fact of payment but more importantly! the timeliness of the filin2 of the supersedeas bond. E$ecution could not be le2ally stayed by reason of the admittedly belated filin2 of the afore'uoted supersedeas bond. CHUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS 1>6 SCRA B7(! February 1B! %CC> "SSUE5 4hen do you file the supersedeas bond- :ow there is no problem about the notice of appeal. ?our notice of appeal is filed within % days! otherwise it is file out of time. #ut is there a deadline for the filin2 of the supersedeas bond- "f you loo, at the law! wala man. +EAD5 "f the defendant6appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond! immediate e$ecution of the 3ud2ement automatically follows. Conversely! the filin2 of the supersedeas bond will not stay the e$ecution if the appeal is not perfected also. ;Failan2an dalawa<. :ecessarily then! the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal. So everythin2 within % days in order for the e$ecution to not proceed. /a,e note of that. :ow normally! sino ba an2 dapat ma26deposit while the case is on appeal- :ormally defendant eh. ?un2 natalo. :ow in the old case of >ruL v. :u$o (MM Phil)" the person under

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

67

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

obli2ation to ma,e the rental deposits is the defendant. :ot the plaintiff. #ut let us see what happened in the case of CITY OF MANILA vs. CA %BC SCRA % & FAC/S5 "n a case involvin2 the premises of an underpass in the Guiapo district! which is owned by the City of .anila! below are stalls which the City is leasin2. /he stall owners were payin2 rentals per month! lets say 0B!&&& a month. .anila increased the rental! letIs say from 0B!&&& to 06!&&&. Ayaw nila. /hey refuse to pay. /he City filed UD. /he old city court of .anila rendered a decision upon.. . #":A?@/ #A5 +82" the >ity >an increase the rental fro# PJ"555 to P7"555 K. +alfway bahN 0aya2 an2 m2a store owners. "t is the City that is a22rieved! and it appealed. "t appealed on that issue on whether the court was authoriHed to fi$ its own rate as a2ainst what the lessor is settin2. So appeal. And when the appeal was 2oin2 on! these defendants did not deposit in the cler, of court the 0 !&&& monthly rental. So that City moved to e$ecute. /he 3ud2ement. +EAD5 /he SC said that the rule that immediate e$ecution of 3ud2ement should be applied is not only when it is the defendant appealin2 but also when it is the plaintiff appealin2. #oth sides. Remember that the decision of the city court is 0 !&&&! ayaw n2 City. ",aw ;defendant<! paya2 ,a- J?es! paya2O @! ,un2 paya2 ,a! baMt ayaw mon2 ma26deposit ($a$o3)N /here is somethin2 wron2 there. ?ou are not 'uestionin2 the decision yet you refuse to deposit. So you should deposit. J4e rule that Sec. > of Rule (& ;referrin2 to the %C6B Rules< can apply even if it is the lessor who appeals in the sense that in such a case! if the lessee desires to prevent e$ecution pendin2 appeal! he ;the lessee< must still file the supersedeas bond and deposit in court the accruin2 rentals. @ur doctrine in >RUC" E) A.. vs. FER/A/!8 EUD8" E) A.. is reversed insofar as it conflicts with the present case. /he rationale for @ur rulin2 is simple5 why should the lessee continue occupyin2 the premises without filin2 the supersedeas bond and ma,in2 the necessary deposit for ensuin2 rentals ;particularly when! by his failure to appeal! the lessee does not 'uestion said accrued and incomin2 rents<-K

Q: Under Section %C! what is the R/C e$ecutin2A: /he R/C is e$ecutin2 the 3ud2ment of the ./C. /he case will still be decided by the R/C

Sec. '2. Preliminary mandatory in!unction in case of appeal. (pon "otion of the p!aintiff, #ithin ten $12% da s fro" the perfection of the appea! to the .egiona! Tria! Court, the !atter "a issue a #rit of pre!i"inar "andator injunction to restore the p!aintiff in possession if the court is satisfied that the defendant5s appea! is frivo!ous or di!ator , or that the appea! of the p!aintiff is pri"a facie "eritorious. $6a%
/here are t o ;1< instances when preli#inary #andatory in*unction can be availed of under Rule (&. /he first is Section % ! second para2raph i.e. before the case is decided! immediately upon the filin2 of the complaint. :ow! (second) eto naman2 appeal! in case the defendant will appeal or the plaintiff will appeal! the plaintiff can still as, for it on appeal. /hat is on appeal if the defendant is frivolous or dilatory or the appeal of the plaintiff is pri#a facie meritorious.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

68

Special Civil Actions 2000 Edition

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

/hat is different from yun2 failure to file the supersedeas bond

Sec. '1. #mmediate e$ecution on appeal to %ourt of Appeals or Supreme %ourt The judg"ent of the .egiona! Tria! Court against the defendant sha!! be i""ediate! executor , #ithout prejudice to a further appea! that "a be ta3en therefro". $12a%
So! talo ,a sa ./C! you appeal to the R/C! you post bond! pay rentals! so plaintiff cannot file for e$ecution pendin2 appeal. :atalo ,a parin sa R/C. Appeal ,a sa CA under Rule B1! 0etition for Review. #ut " will file a motion to e$ecute because the decision of the R/C is immediately e$ecutory. ?ou can appeal and cause more delay of a case under the summary procedure. Under Section %(! you will file a motion in the R/C for the e$ecution of the ./C decision. /he R/C decided to affirm the decision! so you will also file another motion for e$ecution under Section 1%. Q: 4here will you file your motion to e$ecute under Section 1%A: ./C or R/C. Q: 4hat are you actually e$ecutin2A: /he decision of the R/C or the ./C as affirmed by the R/C. ;City of .anila vs. CA! 1&B SCRA9 S? vs. Romero! 1%B SCRA9 Salientes vs. "AC! 1B6 SCRA % & Q%CC R6 the latest.< 4hat you are 2oin2 to e$ecute is the ori2inal decision of the ./C! so the records are brou2ht bac, there and you file your motion to e$ecute in the ./C. 6o@o6

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

69